Subject: re : racist linguist plot ( linguist list : vol-5 - 1467 )

regarding steven schaufele 's recent posting on " language amongst the anthropoidea , or , the racist linguist plot " , wherein he claims never to have noticed any anti-animal " racism " in his training : i remember knowing about racism but not yet knowing about institutionalized racism - - wherein an institution is so permeated with racism that people are not even aware that what they say or do is racist . but let 's change the word " racist " to * species-ist * , since 1 ) racist does n't exactly fit cross-species issues except in the older meaning of " human race " , 2 ) species-ist points more clearly to our anthropocentrism , and 3 ) i no longer like to use the current concept of race because the history of its use over only the past 100 years with this particular meaning ( check the oed ) has not proven useful to me for inclusion into any explanations . dr . schaufele says , ) i certainly do n't remember anything in the introductory survey ) courses i ' ve taken myself . . . so much as hinting that it is an ) a priori assumption of the field of linguistics that language ) is the exclusive prerogative of homo sapiens . maybe the hints were all around , but never noticed . let 's next consider whether linguistics may be guilty of not overt but * covert * and institutionalized species-ism , embedded so pervasively as to be invisible to some . moonhawk 's institutionalized species - ism hypothesis predicts that unwitting species-ism will be reflected : * in textbooks through the positing of such processes as syntax and morphology ( which we claim animals do n't have ) as " universals of language " * in the use of metonymy ( part for whole ) to define * language * in terms of these putative universals , syntax & morphology , processes we claim only humans have , and then in calling everything else without such machinery * communication * ( which * true linguists * do n't study or publish on . ( n . b . , it 's not like you can go to a school or department of * communication * to study how animals communicate - - - so this is terminological limbo : few linguists really care what animals do ; it 's seen as irrelevant ) . * such truisms as " there are no primitive languages " in our intro classes - - where primitive is tacitly understood to mean " with reduced or without the machinery of morphology & syntax " . ( this automatically disallows what apes , cetaceans and others do from being called language , given our other claims above . ) * the omission of " chimpanzee " in the inventory of world 's languages * such constructs as lad ( language acquisition device ) and " innate predisposition to language " applied uniquely to humans . ( have you ever seen anyone positing either construct for the great apes or cetaceans ? ) * in standard theories and stories on the " origins of language " with exclusively human protagonists ( bow - wow and yo - he - ho theories , biblical tower of babel ) * in language acquisition classes that study primarily what humans do , with some emphasis on how humans diverge from animals just for comparison 's sake , to see how we take off developmentally from where they stop * in such phrases as " uniquely human " and " social contract " ( " signs of the apes , songs of the whales , " , nova , 1984 , discussing washoe 's use of asl : " washoe has crossed the line into exclusively human territory . " ) these are just the tip of the iceberg , off the top of the head . look around with sensitive eyes and you ' ll see the subtle signs of this species-ism everywhere . no one has to plot or say anything overtly species-ist because , given the totality of our system , animals can never break through our self-imposed cultural definitional language barrier ( as sue savage - rumbaugh so aptly notes ) . if a chimp and a child perform exactly the same behavior , the child 's is adjudged * linguistic * and the chimp 's is not , because children , unlike chimps , are said to be " on their way to language " ( i . e . , syntax ) . [ thanks to marilyn silva for her assistance to this point ; she thoroughly disavows any connection with what follows ! ] just so that we may see this species-ism more clearly , first a teaching i ' ve posted before , and then a brief outline for a model from a species-inclusive point of view that flows from the teaching . " long ago , men and animals and spirits and plants all communicated in the same way . then something happened . after that , humans had to speak to each other in human speech . but we retained the old language for dreams , and for communicating with spirits , animals , and plants . " this is what a non-species - ist ( cheyenne ) language origin story looks like - - all of nature communicating in a common way , and then * humans * moving out of that system and doing something different , the human kind of language , but remaining still connected to the original language processes whether they know it or not . wilhelm von humbolt , founder of linguistics as a university discipline , observed : " man , regarded as an animal , belongs to one of the singing species ; but his notes are always associated with ideas . " non - species-ist accounts are alway inclusive and evolutionary , not exclusive . and now for a model that flows naturally from the story . 1 ) we now call * language * every " natural system " which has utterances ( incl . sound , gesture , chemical , etc . ) combined with meaning . 2 ) we notice that as well as this sharing , humans also have differences - - different language processes that animals do n't seem to have ( morphology & syntax ) , so we call them two processes of human-specific language , the human kind of language , or just * human language * - - but we no longer designate it by merely the bare word * language * in the old exclusivist , species-ist way . this model declares that humans partake of other processes in the more inclusive * language * as well as those of specifically * human language * , so we look for similarities between humans and animals . indeed , both have motor / gestural components and spatial syntax associated with utterances and meaning , and both ( at least those with limbic systems * * * ) modulate emotions into their utterances . and , perhaps most important of the similarities , both utter idioms ! idioms are funny critters , when you think about it ; as the george foremans of the * hidden side * of linguistics - - the part of human language that does n't work by normal human language rules - - they tend to knock out every bit of morphological and syntactic machinery they encounter , not play by the rules , and consequently can help us question our culturally condoned uniqueness attitude as well . let me explain . it struck me recently , and i ' ve never encountered anyone else discussing this similarity , that the definition of idioms or formulaic speech - - utterances whose meaning cannot be pieced together from the meanings of the pieces , but must be attached to the whole utterance - - is exactly the same as the definition for any act of non-human communication you can find in the textbooks ( for bee dances , bird songs , etc . ) . in fact this definition is perhaps why non-human beings are usually said not to have ( human ) language - - because the pieces of their utterances can't be added up to make the whole meaning the way we say we can using morphology and syntax in human language . humans and animals thus intersect in * language * , in its entire evolutionary range , at most levels - - idioms , sounds , emotions , gestures ( pheromones ? ) - - and then humans only sometimes also construct new utterances from scratch . most typically we tend to use more idioms & formulaic speech with those we know well , and use it less with strangers , with whom we tend to use more formal and public speech . bees and birds and trees tend to know each other in their groups very well and can therefore be said to use idioms in their own languaging . just like us ! - - that is , unless we want to call ourselves sub-human and merely communicating , not using language , when we use idioms and formulaic speech . this move , should you accept it , irrevocably puts humans , land animals , sea creatures , trees , and maybe more , all on the same * language * map . but can these ' wild ' speculations , however evolutionarily based , actually be accomodated within a " real " linguistic theory ? about 15 years ago , charles fillmore was working on a unified approach i really admire ( and perhaps it 's a partial fulfillment of the reconciliation annabel cormack called for in vol-5 - 1469 on trends in lx ) , which goes something like this ( any errors are mine ) : when we are " online " composing / speaking , which i now must see as similar to dan slobin 's " thinking for speaking " mode , our process is to ' reach ' first for a handy ready-made piece of formulaic speech , and then , failing that - - lacking a ' match ' or not liking the proffered ' match ' - - we go on to construct from scratch . nature simply does n't have the further " from scratch " level , but shares everything to that level . fillmore 's formulation seems to fit quite nicely the picture of the evolutionary development of language ( and its synchronic effects ) that i have attempted to sketch here . ( sorry for any embarassment my use of it may have caused you , chuck ! ) the degree to which the above species-inclusive formulations may tend to disturb you quite faithfully reflects , i would guess , the degree to which you are embedded in the institutionalized species-ism so pervasive in linguistics , since these formulations are quite possibly the first truly * alternative * origins theory you have ever seen . because language and intelligence are usually linked , this more compassionate model also has the advantage of placing intelligence in nature and not so much the burden of just human beings . with this approach , linguistics could forge an academic path toward reconcilliation between western minds and nature that could provide a powerful rationale for at least slowing down , if not stopping altogether , the current ecocide , and instituting a new-though - ancient attitude of * respect * for the intelligence of nature . no linguist who sincerely wants to understand what * language * is all about can any longer afford to ignore its deeper processes in nature - - natural language , of which human natural language is an important subset . * * * anyone wishing to see how this inclusive approach further includes brainmind research - - the relevant evolution of brain structures and of brainwave rhythms - - can contact me at dalford @ s1 . csuhayward . edu . - - moonhawk ( % - ) ) ( " the fool on the hill sees the sun going down and ) ( the eyes in his head see the world spinning round " ) ( - - mccartney / lennon )
